Secondary Navigation

Re: Monk ebusiness

Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood, meditated, cleansed the mind of

Message 1 of 18
, Jun 3, 2005

Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
Rushikant.

> A man's car broke down
> as he was driving past
> a beautiful old monastery.
> He walked up the drive and
> knocked on the front door.
> A monk answered, listened
> to the man's story and
> graciously invited him
> to spend the night.
>
> The monks fed the man and
> led him to a tiny chamber
> in which to sleep. The man
> thanked the monks and slept
> serenely until he was awakened
> by a strange and beautiful sound.
>
> The next morning,as the monks
> were repairing his car, he asked
> about the sound that had woke him.
>
> "We're sorry," the monks said.
> "We can't tell you about the sound.
> You're not a monk."
>
> The man was disappointed, but eager
> to be gone, so he thanked the monks
> for their kindness and went on his
> way. During quiet moments afterward,
> the man pondered the source of the
> alluring sound. Several years later
> the man happened to be driving in
> the same area. He stopped at the
> monastery on a whim and asked
> admittance. He explained to the
> monks that he had so enjoyed his
> previous stay, he wondered if he
> might be permitted to spend another
> night under their peaceful roof.
> The monks agreed, and so the man
> stayed with them again.
>
> Late that night, he heard the
> strange beautiful sound The
> following morning he begged
> the monks to explain the sound.
> The monks gave him the same
> answer as before.
>
> "We're sorry. We can't tell
> you about the sound.
> You're not a monk."
>
> By now the man's curiosity
> had turned to obsession.
> He decided to give up everything
> and become a monk, for that was
> the only way he could learn about
> the sound. He informed the monks
> of his decision and began the
> long and arduous task of becoming
> a monk. Seventeen years later,
> the man was finally established
> as a true member of the order.
>
> When the celebration ended, he
> humbly went to the leader of
> the order and asked to be told
> the source of the sound.
>
> Silently, the old monk led
> the new monk to a huge wooden
> door. He opened the door with
> a golden key. That door swung
> open to reveal a second door
> of silver, then a third of gold
> and so on until they had passed
> through twelve doors, each more
> magnificent than the last.
> The new monk's face was awash
> with tears of joy as he finally
> beheld the wondrous source of
> the beautiful mysterious sound
> he had heard so many years before...
>
>
>
>
> But, I can't tell you what it was...
> unless you're a monk.

jodyrrr

... Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has as much to do with self-realization as my dog s ass. While calming

> Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
> its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
> meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
> entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
> knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
> Rushikant.

Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
as much to do with self-realization as my
dog's ass.

While calming the mind is very helpful to the
spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
of ways that don't include celibacy.

There have been many individuals who have come
to self-realization without first being monks.
Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
royal road to wisdom.

So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
to become monks, for others it would be poison and
completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
or even better way for everyone.

Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.

--jody.

[no new below]

> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
> <jeff@m...> wrote:
> > A man's car broke down
> > as he was driving past
> > a beautiful old monastery.
> > He walked up the drive and
> > knocked on the front door.
> > A monk answered, listened
> > to the man's story and
> > graciously invited him
> > to spend the night.
> >
> > The monks fed the man and
> > led him to a tiny chamber
> > in which to sleep. The man
> > thanked the monks and slept
> > serenely until he was awakened
> > by a strange and beautiful sound.
> >
> > The next morning,as the monks
> > were repairing his car, he asked
> > about the sound that had woke him.
> >
> > "We're sorry," the monks said.
> > "We can't tell you about the sound.
> > You're not a monk."
> >
> > The man was disappointed, but eager
> > to be gone, so he thanked the monks
> > for their kindness and went on his
> > way. During quiet moments afterward,
> > the man pondered the source of the
> > alluring sound. Several years later
> > the man happened to be driving in
> > the same area. He stopped at the
> > monastery on a whim and asked
> > admittance. He explained to the
> > monks that he had so enjoyed his
> > previous stay, he wondered if he
> > might be permitted to spend another
> > night under their peaceful roof.
> > The monks agreed, and so the man
> > stayed with them again.
> >
> > Late that night, he heard the
> > strange beautiful sound The
> > following morning he begged
> > the monks to explain the sound.
> > The monks gave him the same
> > answer as before.
> >
> > "We're sorry. We can't tell
> > you about the sound.
> > You're not a monk."
> >
> > By now the man's curiosity
> > had turned to obsession.
> > He decided to give up everything
> > and become a monk, for that was
> > the only way he could learn about
> > the sound. He informed the monks
> > of his decision and began the
> > long and arduous task of becoming
> > a monk. Seventeen years later,
> > the man was finally established
> > as a true member of the order.
> >
> > When the celebration ended, he
> > humbly went to the leader of
> > the order and asked to be told
> > the source of the sound.
> >
> > Silently, the old monk led
> > the new monk to a huge wooden
> > door. He opened the door with
> > a golden key. That door swung
> > open to reveal a second door
> > of silver, then a third of gold
> > and so on until they had passed
> > through twelve doors, each more
> > magnificent than the last.
> > The new monk's face was awash
> > with tears of joy as he finally
> > beheld the wondrous source of
> > the beautiful mysterious sound
> > he had heard so many years before...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But, I can't tell you what it was...
> > unless you're a monk.

Tom Flou

Dear Jody. ... We were having a bit of fun here, Jody. No intention of hurting anybody. Jeff´s joke just made me write a humerous(?) reply. No need to drag

Message 3 of 18
, Jun 5, 2005

Dear Jody.
you wrote:

> Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
> Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
> as much to do with self-realization as my
> dog's ass.
> While calming the mind is very helpful to the
> spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
> of ways that don't include celibacy.
> There have been many individuals who have come
> to self-realization without first being monks.
> Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
> royal road to wisdom.
> So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
> to become monks, for others it would be poison and
> completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
> or even better way for everyone.
> Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
>
> --jody.
>

We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
No intention of hurting anybody.
Jeff´s joke just made me write a
humerous(?) reply.
No need to drag your dog into this.
However clever he/she is, however
famous in these forums.....;-)
...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
they are waaay too serious.
Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
What about you?

Tom

jodyrrr

... Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant s ... I didn t read this as part of the joke, but as a contention about the necessity of celibacy.

> Dear Jody.
> you wrote:
>
> > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
> > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
> > as much to do with self-realization as my
> > dog's ass.
> > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
> > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
> > of ways that don't include celibacy.
> > There have been many individuals who have come
> > to self-realization without first being monks.
> > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
> > royal road to wisdom.
> > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
> > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
> > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
> > or even better way for everyone.
> > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
> >
> > --jody.
> >
>
> We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
> No intention of hurting anybody.

Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
assertions:

> Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
> its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
> meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
> entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
> knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
> Rushikant.

I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
contention about the necessity of celibacy.

> Jeff´s joke just made me write a
> humerous(?) reply.

And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
However, I did feel the need to let you know that
I have respect for those who make the choice to
be monks, even while I have no respect for the
idea that such is a spiritual necessity.

You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
one of the things which pushes them is the idea
that celibacy is necessary for realization to
occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
is optional rather than mandatory.

Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
not the first time, I can promise you that.

--jody.

Rushikant Mehta

Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), one need not be a monk outwardly, &

Message 5 of 18
, Jun 5, 2005

Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced )celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts no more ?

Rushikant.

jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:

--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"<tom@f...> wrote:> Dear Jody.> you wrote: > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from> > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has> > as much to do with self-realization as my> > dog's ass.> > While calming the mind is very helpful to the> > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number> > of ways that don't include celibacy.> > There have been many individuals who have come> > to self-realization without first being monks.> > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's> > royal road to wisdom.> > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some> > to become monks, for others it would be poison and> > completely useless to do
so. There is no right way,> > or even better way for everyone.> > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.> > > > --jody.> > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.> No intention of hurting anybody.

Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant'sassertions:

> Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing> its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,> meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without> entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without> knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !> Rushikant.

I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as acontention about the necessity of celibacy.

> Jeff´s joke just made me write a> humerous(?) reply.

And I was not responding to either you or
Jeff.However, I did feel the need to let you know thatI have respect for those who make the choice tobe monks, even while I have no respect for theidea that such is a spiritual necessity.

You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,especially when my buttons gets pushed. Andone of the things which pushes them is the ideathat celibacy is necessary for realization tooccur. While I realize it's traditional to saysuch things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacyis optional rather than mandatory.

Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's the case I've stuck my foot in it
again. It'snot the first time, I can promise you that.

> Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
> that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
> one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
> celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
> source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
> no more ?
> Rushikant.

One can lust for bliss just as much as they
lust for sex. Is such a lust better?

> jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
> <tom@f...> wrote:
> > Dear Jody.
> > you wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
> > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
> > > as much to do with self-realization as my
> > > dog's ass.
> > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
> > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
> > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
> > > There have been many individuals who have come
> > > to self-realization without first being monks.
> > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
> > > royal road to wisdom.
> > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
> > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
> > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
> > > or even better way for everyone.
> > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
> > >
> > > --jody.
> > >
> >
> > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
> > No intention of hurting anybody.
>
> Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
> assertions:
>
> > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
> > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
> > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
> > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
> > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
> > Rushikant.
>
> I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
> contention about the necessity of celibacy.
>
> > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
> > humerous(?) reply.
>
> And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
> However, I did feel the need to let you know that
> I have respect for those who make the choice to
> be monks, even while I have no respect for the
> idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
>
> > No need to drag your dog into this.
>
> I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
>
> > However clever he/she is, however
> > famous in these forums.....;-)
> > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
> > they are waaay too serious.
> > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
> > What about you?
> >
> > Tom
>
> You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
> especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
> one of the things which pushes them is the idea
> that celibacy is necessary for realization to
> occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
> such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
> is optional rather than mandatory.
>
> Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
> the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
> not the first time, I can promise you that.
>
> --jody.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
> Send instant messages to your online friends

Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ? jodyrrr wrote:--- In

Message 7 of 18
, Jun 6, 2005

Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:

--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta<rushi_kant@y...> wrote:> Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts > no more ? > Rushikant.

One can lust for bliss just as much as theylust for sex. Is such a lust better?

> jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"> <tom@f...> wrote:> > Dear Jody.> > you wrote: > > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from> > >
Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has> > > as much to do with self-realization as my> > > dog's ass.> > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the> > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number> > > of ways that don't include celibacy.> > > There have been many individuals who have come> > > to self-realization without first being monks.> > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's> > > royal road to wisdom.> > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some> > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and> > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,> > > or even better way for everyone.> > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.> > > > > > --jody.> > > > > > > We were having
a bit of fun here, Jody.> > No intention of hurting anybody.> > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's> assertions:> > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing> > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,> > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without> > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without> > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !> > Rushikant.> > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a> contention about the necessity of celibacy.> > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a> > humerous(?) reply.> > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.> However, I did feel the need to let you know that> I have respect for those who make the choice to> be monks,
even while I have no respect for the> idea that such is a spiritual necessity.> > > No need to drag your dog into this.> > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.> > > However clever he/she is, however> > famous in these forums.....;-)> > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,> > they are waaay too serious.> > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.> > What about you?> > > > Tom> > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,> especially when my buttons gets pushed. And> one of the things which pushes them is the idea> that celibacy is necessary for realization to> occur. While I realize it's traditional to say> such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy> is optional rather than mandatory.> > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's > the case I've stuck my foot in
it again. It's> not the first time, I can promise you that.> > --jody.> > > > > ---------------------------------> Yahoo! Groups Links> > To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.> Send instant messages to your online friendshttp://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I will add here that the whole idea of mediatation and liberation is only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR

Message 8 of 18
, Jun 6, 2005

I will add here that the whole idea of mediatation and liberation is only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR AND EGO.

The FACT is a FACT even when one tries to suit his or her own need.

Thanks

SK

Rushikant Mehta <rushi_kant@...> wrote:

Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:

--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta<rushi_kant@y...> wrote:> Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts > no more ? > Rushikant.

One can lust for bliss just as much as theylust for sex. Is such a lust better?

> jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"> <tom@f...> wrote:> > Dear Jody.> > you wrote: > > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from> > >
Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has> > > as much to do with self-realization as my> > > dog's ass.> > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the> > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number> > > of ways that don't include celibacy.> > > There have been many individuals who have come> > > to self-realization without first being monks.> > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's> > > royal road to wisdom.> > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some> > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and> > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,> > > or even better way for everyone.> > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.> > > > > > --jody.> > > > > > > We were having
a bit of fun here, Jody.> > No intention of hurting anybody.> > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's> assertions:> > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing> > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,> > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without> > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without> > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !> > Rushikant.> > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a> contention about the necessity of celibacy.> > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a> > humerous(?) reply.> > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.> However, I did feel the need to let you know that> I have respect for those who make the choice to> be monks,
even while I have no respect for the> idea that such is a spiritual necessity.> > > No need to drag your dog into this.> > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.> > > However clever he/she is, however> > famous in these forums.....;-)> > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,> > they are waaay too serious.> > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.> > What about you?> > > > Tom> > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,> especially when my buttons gets pushed. And> one of the things which pushes them is the idea> that celibacy is necessary for realization to> occur. While I realize it's traditional to say> such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy> is optional rather than mandatory.> > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's > the case I've stuck my foot in
it again. It's> not the first time, I can promise you that.> > --jody.> > > > > ---------------------------------> Yahoo! Groups Links> > To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.> Send instant messages to your online friendshttp://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

> Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the
> power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

No. Bliss is with us always in various forms.
It's a spectrum of sensation. Spritual bliss and sexual
bliss are on the same spectrum. In fact, I would argue
that they are the same thing experienced in different
contexts.

So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
lusted after.

People get their comfort where they find it. The idea
that you must put off sexual pleasure to know spiritual
pleasure is a myth. One does not cancel the other, and
they can both be known in the same life.

> <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
> > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
> > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
> > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
> > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
> > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
> > no more ?
> > Rushikant.
>
> One can lust for bliss just as much as they
> lust for sex. Is such a lust better?
>
> > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
> > <tom@f...> wrote:
> > > Dear Jody.
> > > you wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
> > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
> > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
> > > > dog's ass.
> > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
> > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
> > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
> > > > There have been many individuals who have come
> > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
> > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
> > > > royal road to wisdom.
> > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
> > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
> > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
> > > > or even better way for everyone.
> > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
> > > >
> > > > --jody.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
> > > No intention of hurting anybody.
> >
> > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
> > assertions:
> >
> > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
> > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
> > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
> > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
> > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
> > > Rushikant.
> >
> > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
> > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
> >
> > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
> > > humerous(?) reply.
> >
> > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
> > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
> > I have respect for those who make the choice to
> > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
> > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
> >
> > > No need to drag your dog into this.
> >
> > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
> >
> > > However clever he/she is, however
> > > famous in these forums.....;-)
> > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
> > > they are waaay too serious.
> > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
> > > What about you?
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
> > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
> > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
> > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
> > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
> > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
> > is optional rather than mandatory.
> >
> > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
> > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
> > not the first time, I can promise you that.
> >
> > --jody.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

> I will add here that the whole idea of mediatation and liberation is

only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from
LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR AND EGO.

One exists as freedom itself, at all times, regardless
of how much lust, anger, greed, etc. one is experiencing.

It's always right there, closer than our own breath.
We may be distracted from it by the various conditions
of life, but once it's been recognized, no amount of lust,
anger, greed, etc. will sway one from the fact that they
are freedom itself.

--jody.

> The FACT is a FACT even when one tries to suit his or her own need.
> Thanks
> SK
>
> Rushikant Mehta <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
> Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of

> <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
> > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
> > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
> > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
> > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
> > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
> > no more ?
> > Rushikant.
>
> One can lust for bliss just as much as they
> lust for sex. Is such a lust better?
>
> > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
> > <tom@f...> wrote:
> > > Dear Jody.
> > > you wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
> > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
> > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
> > > > dog's ass.
> > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
> > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
> > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
> > > > There have been many individuals who have come
> > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
> > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
> > > > royal road to wisdom.
> > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
> > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
> > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
> > > > or even better way for everyone.
> > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
> > > >
> > > > --jody.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
> > > No intention of hurting anybody.
> >
> > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
> > assertions:
> >
> > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
> > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
> > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
> > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
> > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
> > > Rushikant.
> >
> > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
> > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
> >
> > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
> > > humerous(?) reply.
> >
> > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
> > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
> > I have respect for those who make the choice to
> > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
> > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
> >
> > > No need to drag your dog into this.
> >
> > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
> >
> > > However clever he/she is, however
> > > famous in these forums.....;-)
> > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
> > > they are waaay too serious.
> > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
> > > What about you?
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
> > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
> > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
> > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
> > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
> > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
> > is optional rather than mandatory.
> >
> > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
> > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
> > not the first time, I can promise you that.
> >
> > --jody.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

yr quote So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are lusted after. response: the only BIG difference

Message 11 of 18
, Jun 6, 2005

yr quote

"So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wantingsexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that arelusted after."

response: the only BIG difference between them is spiritual bliss is sustainable and sexual bliss go away with age and many other factors, it is not sustainable.and then it is a cause of suffering, like for many in old age . Sex reside in their minds but not in muscles.

I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every moment and freedom which is unwaivering.

--OM

SK

jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:

--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta<rushi_kant@y...> wrote:> Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the > power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

No. Bliss is with us always in various forms.It's a spectrum of sensation. Spritual bliss and sexualbliss are on the same spectrum. In fact, I would arguethat they are the same thing experienced in differentcontexts.

So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wantingsexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that arelusted after.

People get their comfort where they find it. The ideathat you must put off sexual pleasure to know spiritualpleasure is a myth. One does not cancel the other, andthey can both be known in the same life.

--jody.

>
jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:--- Inmeditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta> <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:> > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant > > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), > > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced > > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime > > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts > > no more ? > > Rushikant.> > One can lust for bliss just as much as they> lust for sex. Is such a lust better?> > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:> > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"> > <tom@f...> wrote:> > > Dear Jody.> > > you wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything
away from> > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has> > > > as much to do with self-realization as my> > > > dog's ass.> > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the> > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number> > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.> > > > There have been many individuals who have come> > > > to self-realization without first being monks.> > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's> > > > royal road to wisdom.> > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some> > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and> > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,> > > > or even better way for everyone.> > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting
hurt.> > > > > > > > --jody.> > > > > > > > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.> > > No intention of hurting anybody.> > > > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's> > assertions:> > > > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing> > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,> > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without> > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without> > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !> > > Rushikant.> > > > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a> > contention about the necessity of celibacy.> > > > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a> >
> humerous(?) reply.> > > > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.> > However, I did feel the need to let you know that> > I have respect for those who make the choice to> > be monks, even while I have no respect for the> > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.> > > > > No need to drag your dog into this.> > > > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.> > > > > However clever he/she is, however> > > famous in these forums.....;-)> > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,> > > they are waaay too serious.> > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.> > > What about you?> > > > > > Tom> > > > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,> > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And> > one of the things which pushes
them is the idea> > that celibacy is necessary for realization to> > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say> > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy> > is optional rather than mandatory.> > > > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's > > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's> > not the first time, I can promise you that.> > > > --jody.> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------> > Yahoo! Groups Links> > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> >
meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms ofService. > > > > > > > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.> > Send instant messages to your online friends> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com> > > > > ---------------------------------> Yahoo! Groups Links> > To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups
is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.> Send instant messages to your online friendshttp://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

jodyrrr

... That unwavering freedom IS us, right now and always. It s never been anywhere else but right here. But expecting your freedom to be a source of constant

> yr quote
> "So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
> sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
> lusted after."
> response: the only BIG difference between them is spiritual
> bliss is sustainable and sexual bliss go away with age and many
> other factors, it is not sustainable.and then it is a cause of
> suffering, like for many in old age . Sex reside in their minds
> but not in muscles.
> I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every moment
> and freedom which is unwaivering.
> --OM
> SK

That unwavering freedom IS us, right now and always.
It's never been anywhere else but right here.

But expecting your freedom to be a source of constant
bliss is occluding nonsense. We are in bodies, and
while we may be blessed to know ourselves as that
unwavering freedom, if we fall and bump our heads,
our bliss is likely to be interruped by some pain.

Your desire for sustainable bliss is identical to
another's desire for sex. You've just dressed it
up in pretty bows and so think it's "higher." It's
not. It's all about seeking comfort. You may believe
yours is somehow better, but that's just egocentricism.

--jody.

>
> jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
> <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
> > Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the
> > power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?
>
> No. Bliss is with us always in various forms.
> It's a spectrum of sensation. Spritual bliss and sexual
> bliss are on the same spectrum. In fact, I would argue
> that they are the same thing experienced in different
> contexts.
>
> So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
> sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
> lusted after.
>
> People get their comfort where they find it. The idea
> that you must put off sexual pleasure to know spiritual
> pleasure is a myth. One does not cancel the other, and
> they can both be known in the same life.
>
> --jody.
>
> > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:--- In
> meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
> > <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
> > > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
> > > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
> > > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
> > > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
> > > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
> > > no more ?
> > > Rushikant.
> >
> > One can lust for bliss just as much as they
> > lust for sex. Is such a lust better?
> >
> > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
> > > <tom@f...> wrote:
> > > > Dear Jody.
> > > > you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
> > > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
> > > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
> > > > > dog's ass.
> > > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
> > > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
> > > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
> > > > > There have been many individuals who have come
> > > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
> > > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
> > > > > royal road to wisdom.
> > > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
> > > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
> > > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
> > > > > or even better way for everyone.
> > > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
> > > > >
> > > > > --jody.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
> > > > No intention of hurting anybody.
> > >
> > > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
> > > assertions:
> > >
> > > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
> > > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
> > > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
> > > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
> > > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
> > > > Rushikant.
> > >
> > > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
> > > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
> > >
> > > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
> > > > humerous(?) reply.
> > >
> > > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
> > > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
> > > I have respect for those who make the choice to
> > > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
> > > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
> > >
> > > > No need to drag your dog into this.
> > >
> > > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
> > >
> > > > However clever he/she is, however
> > > > famous in these forums.....;-)
> > > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
> > > > they are waaay too serious.
> > > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
> > > > What about you?
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
> > > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
> > > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
> > > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
> > > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
> > > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
> > > is optional rather than mandatory.
> > >
> > > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
> > > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
> > > not the first time, I can promise you that.
> > >
> > > --jody.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
> > > Send instant messages to your online friends
> > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk
> <sumansk@y...> wrote:
> > yr quote
> > "So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
> > sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
> > lusted after."
> > response: the only BIG difference between them is spiritual
> > bliss is sustainable and sexual bliss go away with age and many
> > other factors, it is not sustainable.and then it is a cause of
> > suffering, like for many in old age . Sex reside in their minds
> > but not in muscles.
> > I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every moment
> > and freedom which is unwaivering.
> > --OM
> > SK
>
> That unwavering freedom IS us, right now and always.
> It's never been anywhere else but right here.
>
> But expecting your freedom to be a source of constant
> bliss is occluding nonsense. We are in bodies, and
> while we may be blessed to know ourselves as that
> unwavering freedom, if we fall and bump our heads,
> our bliss is likely to be interruped by some pain.
>
> Your desire for sustainable bliss is identical to
> another's desire for sex. You've just dressed it
> up in pretty bows and so think it's "higher." It's
> not. It's all about seeking comfort. You may believe
> yours is somehow better, but that's just egocentricism.
>
> --jody.

Hi Jody -

While the seeking and
the desire for sex,
for spiritual awakening,
or a tootsie pop, may all
have something to do with
your comfort-catchall
thesis, the quality of
the comfort received is
inherently different
in each instance.

Sustainability is a
tangent off that main
point, and one that
cannot be addressed
a priori. The issue of
sustainability is not
in the forefront of the
seeker's mind. Following
your model and syntax,
comfort is the goal.

And while a tootsie pop
may be savored and
lasts a long time, no
one expects it to last
eternally. Wow, The
Eternal Tootsie Pop,
available now, at your
favorite market or ashram.

Back to the sustainability
tangent...

Once spiritual awakening
is experienced (understood
by direct experiential
"Knowing"), the matter
of sustainability enters.

I know that you are well
versed in the Hindu model,
where there are distinctions
of a "salvikalpa samadhi" -
momentary, or in-meditation
bliss that fades much like
a chemically induced high,
and then the sustained bliss
of a "nirvikalpa samadhi"
that becomes an undercurrent
of life's every moment,
bump on the head or not -
the "sahaja samadhi" or
natural enlightenment.
This is sustainable, without
a nanosecond's interruption
ever. It is unassailable,
unfreakoutable, Self-
Realized, God-Realized,
Spirit-Realized bliss.
Eternal, even (being
outside of the time/
space pixie dust).

And to compare any of
these samadhis to the
bliss of sex, or drugs
or rock'n'roll (all of
which I speak of from
direct experiential
knowledge and heartily
endorsed with 4-star
ratings,and still do,
except the drugs) is to
transparently enter the
realm of not knowing what
to heaven (5-star rating
...a kazillion-star rating)
you're talking about.

When you deconstruct
down your oft-used and
abused "exactly like...
nothing more than...
that's only..." you're
over into a false posture,
assuming, or at least
presenting that you
are the holder of
absolute objective
truths...in a relative
world.

The things(consciousness)
of the absolute spiritual
or awakened realm cannot
be compared or constasted
to the things of the
material, relative world.
They're not in the same
ballpark.

Love, as always.

Nothing more than...

Jeff

jodyrrr

... Definitely, and the scale of what is quality comfort is different for everyone. ... For as long as it can be maintained. Comfort is a condition of safety

> --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
> <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk
> > <sumansk@y...> wrote:
> > > yr quote
> > > "So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
> > > sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
> > > lusted after."
> > > response: the only BIG difference between them is spiritual
> > > bliss is sustainable and sexual bliss go away with age and many
> > > other factors, it is not sustainable.and then it is a cause of
> > > suffering, like for many in old age . Sex reside in their minds
> > > but not in muscles.
> > > I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every moment
> > > and freedom which is unwaivering.
> > > --OM
> > > SK
> >
> > That unwavering freedom IS us, right now and always.
> > It's never been anywhere else but right here.
> >
> > But expecting your freedom to be a source of constant
> > bliss is occluding nonsense. We are in bodies, and
> > while we may be blessed to know ourselves as that
> > unwavering freedom, if we fall and bump our heads,
> > our bliss is likely to be interruped by some pain.
> >
> > Your desire for sustainable bliss is identical to
> > another's desire for sex. You've just dressed it
> > up in pretty bows and so think it's "higher." It's
> > not. It's all about seeking comfort. You may believe
> > yours is somehow better, but that's just egocentricism.
> >
> > --jody.
>
> Hi Jody -
>
> While the seeking and
> the desire for sex,
> for spiritual awakening,
> or a tootsie pop, may all
> have something to do with
> your comfort-catchall
> thesis, the quality of
> the comfort received is
> inherently different
> in each instance.

Definitely, and the scale of what is
quality comfort is different for
everyone.

> Sustainability is a
> tangent off that main
> point, and one that
> cannot be addressed
> a priori. The issue of
> sustainability is not
> in the forefront of the
> seeker's mind. Following
> your model and syntax,
> comfort is the goal.

For as long as it can be maintained.
Comfort is a condition of safety
and supply. There is a minimum
level of these which must be met,
different for everyone. But it
doesn't stop at that level, hence
we have super rich folk with
everything they want.

But that doesn't mean money ensures
comfort, just that it gets the basics
covered.

> And while a tootsie pop
> may be savored and
> lasts a long time, no
> one expects it to last
> eternally. Wow, The
> Eternal Tootsie Pop,
> available now, at your
> favorite market or ashram.
>
> Back to the sustainability
> tangent...
>
> Once spiritual awakening
> is experienced (understood
> by direct experiential
> "Knowing"), the matter
> of sustainability enters.
>
> I know that you are well
> versed in the Hindu model,
> where there are distinctions
> of a "salvikalpa samadhi" -
> momentary, or in-meditation
> bliss that fades much like
> a chemically induced high,
> and then the sustained bliss
> of a "nirvikalpa samadhi"
> that becomes an undercurrent
> of life's every moment,
> bump on the head or not -
> the "sahaja samadhi" or
> natural enlightenment.
> This is sustainable, without
> a nanosecond's interruption
> ever. It is unassailable,
> unfreakoutable, Self-
> Realized, God-Realized,
> Spirit-Realized bliss.
> Eternal, even (being
> outside of the time/
> space pixie dust).

I don't think sustainability comes into
play at all. When you see who you really
are, that's it. You know yourself as that,
always.

I don't pay attention to flavors of
samadhi. You know who you are, you
are still looking to know who you are,
or you don't really care who you are.

> And to compare any of
> these samadhis to the
> bliss of sex, or drugs
> or rock'n'roll (all of
> which I speak of from
> direct experiential
> knowledge and heartily
> endorsed with 4-star
> ratings,and still do,
> except the drugs) is to
> transparently enter the
> realm of not knowing what
> to heaven (5-star rating
> ...a kazillion-star rating)
> you're talking about.

To me samadhi is the understanding
of the Self. That IS the Self.
You can't compare it to anything.
What I was saying is that the desire
to do drugs and the desire for spiritual
bliss, AND samadhi, are the same thing.
Comfort seeking.

Samadhi is preferrable to sex, drugs,
whatever. But those who want samadhi,
want what they believe samadhi will be.
You can't have ANY IDEA AT ALL about
what samadhi is like until you've been
to samadhi. Until then all you can have
is speculation about it, and EVERY
speculation is incorrect, regardless of
what guru or scripture told you.

I believe that peoples' ideas about
samadhi has something to do with their
notions about ultimate comfort. It IS
a kind of ultimate comfort, but I guarantee
you it's not in the way they think it is.

That is not possible, to anticipate what
samadhi is like before you've been there
yourself.

> When you deconstruct
> down your oft-used and
> abused "exactly like...
> nothing more than...
> that's only..." you're
> over into a false posture,
> assuming, or at least
> presenting that you
> are the holder of
> absolute objective
> truths...in a relative
> world.

I know who I am, I know vedanta somewhat,
I comment from there.

> The things(consciousness)
> of the absolute spiritual
> or awakened realm cannot
> be compared or constasted
> to the things of the
> material, relative world.
> They're not in the same
> ballpark.

I have never, ever done so, Jeff.

You have read me wrong.

I'm not comparing the Self to anything.
I'm comparing the desire to know the
Self to other desires. I'm saying they
are the same thing, seeking comfort.

And I'm saying seeking comfort is always
ok, as long as you aren't hurting yourself
or others.

> Love, as always.
>
> Nothing more than...
>
> Jeff

No prob, my friend.

We're just a bit out of phase sometimes.

--jody.

Jeff Belyea

... many ... of ... minds ... moment ... My reference was in response to your earlier comment about a bump on the head interrupting the bliss. A minor point on

> > > > but not in muscles.
> > > > I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every

moment

> > > > and freedom which is unwaivering.
> > > > --OM
> > > > SK
> > >
> > > That unwavering freedom IS us, right now and always.
> > > It's never been anywhere else but right here.
> > >
> > > But expecting your freedom to be a source of constant
> > > bliss is occluding nonsense. We are in bodies, and
> > > while we may be blessed to know ourselves as that
> > > unwavering freedom, if we fall and bump our heads,
> > > our bliss is likely to be interruped by some pain.
> > >
> > > Your desire for sustainable bliss is identical to
> > > another's desire for sex. You've just dressed it
> > > up in pretty bows and so think it's "higher." It's
> > > not. It's all about seeking comfort. You may believe
> > > yours is somehow better, but that's just egocentricism.
> > >
> > > --jody.
> >
> > Hi Jody -
> >
> > While the seeking and
> > the desire for sex,
> > for spiritual awakening,
> > or a tootsie pop, may all
> > have something to do with
> > your comfort-catchall
> > thesis, the quality of
> > the comfort received is
> > inherently different
> > in each instance.
>
> Definitely, and the scale of what is
> quality comfort is different for
> everyone.
>
> > Sustainability is a
> > tangent off that main
> > point, and one that
> > cannot be addressed
> > a priori. The issue of
> > sustainability is not
> > in the forefront of the
> > seeker's mind. Following
> > your model and syntax,
> > comfort is the goal.
>
> For as long as it can be maintained.
> Comfort is a condition of safety
> and supply. There is a minimum
> level of these which must be met,
> different for everyone. But it
> doesn't stop at that level, hence
> we have super rich folk with
> everything they want.
>
> But that doesn't mean money ensures
> comfort, just that it gets the basics
> covered.
>
> > And while a tootsie pop
> > may be savored and
> > lasts a long time, no
> > one expects it to last
> > eternally. Wow, The
> > Eternal Tootsie Pop,
> > available now, at your
> > favorite market or ashram.
> >
> > Back to the sustainability
> > tangent...
> >
> > Once spiritual awakening
> > is experienced (understood
> > by direct experiential
> > "Knowing"), the matter
> > of sustainability enters.
> >
> > I know that you are well
> > versed in the Hindu model,
> > where there are distinctions
> > of a "salvikalpa samadhi" -
> > momentary, or in-meditation
> > bliss that fades much like
> > a chemically induced high,
> > and then the sustained bliss
> > of a "nirvikalpa samadhi"
> > that becomes an undercurrent
> > of life's every moment,
> > bump on the head or not -
> > the "sahaja samadhi" or
> > natural enlightenment.
> > This is sustainable, without
> > a nanosecond's interruption
> > ever. It is unassailable,
> > unfreakoutable, Self-
> > Realized, God-Realized,
> > Spirit-Realized bliss.
> > Eternal, even (being
> > outside of the time/
> > space pixie dust).
>
> I don't think sustainability comes into
> play at all. When you see who you really
> are, that's it. You know yourself as that,
> always.

My reference was in response
to your earlier comment about
a bump on the head interrupting
the bliss. A minor point on the
way to my main issue with some
of your responses. I am simply
making an appeal that you
refrain from disdain.

>
> I don't pay attention to flavors of
> samadhi. You know who you are, you
> are still looking to know who you are,
> or you don't really care who you are.

Nice, succinct distinctions.

>
> > And to compare any of
> > these samadhis to the
> > bliss of sex, or drugs
> > or rock'n'roll (all of
> > which I speak of from
> > direct experiential
> > knowledge and heartily
> > endorsed with 4-star
> > ratings,and still do,
> > except the drugs) is to
> > transparently enter the
> > realm of not knowing what
> > to heaven (5-star rating
> > ...a kazillion-star rating)
> > you're talking about.
>
> To me samadhi is the understanding
> of the Self. That IS the Self.
> You can't compare it to anything.
> What I was saying is that the desire
> to do drugs and the desire for spiritual
> bliss, AND samadhi, are the same thing.
> Comfort seeking.
>
> Samadhi is preferrable to sex, drugs,
> whatever. But those who want samadhi,
> want what they believe samadhi will be.
> You can't have ANY IDEA AT ALL about
> what samadhi is like until you've been
> to samadhi. Until then all you can have
> is speculation about it, and EVERY
> speculation is incorrect, regardless of
> what guru or scripture told you.

I agree. Never a dispute here.

>
> I believe that peoples' ideas about
> samadhi has something to do with their
> notions about ultimate comfort. It IS
> a kind of ultimate comfort, but I guarantee
> you it's not in the way they think it is.
>
> That is not possible, to anticipate what
> samadhi is like before you've been there
> yourself.